Cabinet for Workforce Development v. Cummins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “KRS 342.165(1) states as follows: If an accident is caused in any degree by the intentional failure of the employer to comply with any specific statute or lawful administrative regulation made thereunder, communicated to the employer and relative to installation or maintenance of safety appliances or methods, the compensation for which the employer would otherwise have been liable under this chapter shall be increased thirty percent (30%) in the amount of each payment. If an accident is caused in any degree by the intentional failure of the employee to use any safety appliance furnished by the employer or to obey any lawful and reasonable order or administrative regulation of the execu tive director or the employer for the safety of employees or the public, the compensation for which the employer would otherwise have been liable under this chapter, shall be decreased by fifteen percent (15%) in the amount of each payment, (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chaney v. Dags Branch Coal Co.

2. “The decision in [Apex Mining v.] Blankenship clearly was based on the egregious nature of the particular violation of KRS 338.031(l)(a) which had occurred. Nowhere did we state or imply that every violation of KRS 338.031(l)(a) constituted the violation of a specific safety statute for the purposes of KRS 342.165. What we did determine was that where a worker was required to operate a piece of grossly defective equipment, the condition of which created a safety hazard which was patently obvious, even to a lay person, which had caused prior accidents, and which was known to the employer for some time but was not corrected, it was not necessary for a statute or regulation to specifically prohibit the equipment from being operated in that condition. KRS 338.031(l)(a) would suffice. 6”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Offutt

3. “The burden was on the claimant to prove that the employer's intentional violation of a specific safety statute or regulation contributed to his injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Groce v. Vanmeter Contracting, Inc.